The Sun. — London, England, 1838-02-16 00:00:00

- must he alike the study of both that the present franchise shall I prime fabricator of this poisoned weapon. I desire to re- • not be abridged, nor the present voters practically disfran- press election abus es equally and impartially, let them be corn chiaed. And, though they may differ on the point of further I mitted by whom they may.—(Loud cheers.) But who can extension, at least let them join with me in procuring for voters believe, while such complaints resound on all sides, and while that measure of protection which is essential to preserve the the evils complained of remain not only unredressed, but present extent of the franchise, without restriction or curtail- even unheeded, that this House really represents the free reent—at least let them guard the votes of the poorer electors sentiments of the electoral body of this kingdom ? If there from being sucked up into the patrimony of the richer.-- be any one still credulous enough to suppose that the t ee ( Hear, hear.) We are accustomed to boast, Sir, that we presentative System as it now stands is pure °tom coercion possess a representative Government—that the people of this tl — e that this is a delusion or intlMidation, we may be very si country dwell under laws made by their own representatives which cannot be very widely extended, when we find both in Parliament. Now, as to th e ma i n purposes of are re: Whigs and Tories uniting to proclaim the crentrary..—( Heat-. ) tive Government, I believe there is little difference of opinion. No ingenuity can longer uphold such an imposture in lieu The object is to get a House of Commons possessing the con- nation a l mind. It is but too plainly seen—it is but too pain fidence of the people, chosen by the free and deliberate prefer- fully felt—by what weapons a contested election is now con - ence of their various constituencie s , and recommended to the ducted or helped forward. Watch the proceeding.; of a land esteem of the nation at large by th e p u bli c certainty that they lord with his tenants, of reistomers with their tradesmen, of have been thus preferred.—( Hear, hear, hear.) This is employers with their labourers, and you will see the miserable the grand object for th e attainm en t of which the people are motives by which men of power seek to press the electors into called upon to go thro ug h th e haras s i ng and costly business their service, and to extinguish in them all sense of public of a general election. If your election do e s no t brin g out the obligation.—(Cheers.) They have the means of making the genuine, unbought, unconstrained sentiments of the voters— condition of an elector better or worse, and this is the source if it is not publi c ly kno wn t o b r i ng ou t thi s res u l t and no of their empire over his will—an empire which I once heard other —you might as well have no election at all ; the institu - described in language of emphatic insolence by an English tion is a deceit and a failure.—( Cheers.) Such is the object Dives, " Where I give custom I expect allegiance."—( Hear, and intention of a representative system. And now I ask he ar .) It seems to be the standing belief among landlords, the Hous e w h et h er th i s object is really attained ? Does the that the vote belongin g t o th e occupier o f their farm is as practical workin g o f E ng li sh elections produce th a t resu l t for mu c h th e i r pr o p erty as t h e b u il d i ngs erected on the farm. which alo ne representation exists? Does it afford to the Some landlords are generous enottk,4l to content themselves nation at large legitimate ground for confidence in the mem- with one of the tenant's votes at their bidding, leaving him the hers assembled within these walls ? I affirm that it does not, others to disp ose o f as h e c h ooses. The few landlord s w h o t rea t faces by whi c h e l ect i on returns are now effected to and that it cannot. S uff i cient evidence exists of the prae- the tenant as if h e h a d a pol i t i cal judgment and conscience de- of his own are rare and honourable exceptions, and are de prive the existing system of all title to national esteem servedly chronicled as such in the public prints.—( Hear, bear. ) and attachment. It i s n o t i n t rut h an d in fact, and in I wish that it were possible to lay before Parliament a re (Hthe faithful use of the words, a representative system.— turn of the nurel,er of ejectments, notices to quit, changes of ear, hear.) The characteristic properties of a represen- dealing, ands dismissals from employment, which have taken tative system ar e s u bd ue d an d p ara l yze d b y a vi c i ous mode place in consequence of the late election.—(Loud cries of of workine. It is a system which still preserves the baneful hear.) Most assuredly the total number would he large principle of' nomination, varied indeed in the manner of its and remarkable, considering that h i the town of Grantham application, but unaltered in substance—the principle wh e l :eb) alone, Lord Huntingtower sent thirty-seven notices to quit the choice is dictated by one person and the vote give;, by an- to his various tenants. And, be it observed, that the num other, which the Reform Act professed to have expelled for bar of hardships of this sort actually inflicted forms but an ever.—(Cheers.) I do not mean, of course, to der, that infinitely small proportion of the cases of undue interfer many votes are given, and that too of all shades of political once •; for they are the instances of persons open to in party, which are perfectly unexceptionable in every point of wae the courage to disobey threats, and brave the view, and which express noth..rng but the fair and genuine consequences; and if these be numerous, how , much more sentiments of o f th e electors, But Ido mean to assert, that, merous are the instances of those who submit ? We know well with respect to a lare2 proportion of electors, and a large that where the law forbids any act on penalty of a moderate proportion of votee, this is the very reverse of the truth. fine, for one p erson w h o i s made to pay the fine, a thousand Both corruptiota of voters, and d e p en d ence o f voters, defile are deterred f rom comm i tt i ng t h e forbidden act, and it is upon the electoral atmosp h ere to a lamentable extent—the hop this fundame n tal suppos i t i on, t h at the advantage of prohibi suppre es of one clas es , t h e fears of another, are called in, to the entire tory laws is ca l cu l ate d . B ut i f this is true when the law `esion of honest an d un bi asse d political sopreference._ threatens only a small fin e , h ow muc h more true i s it when ( Hear, h ear .) L arge numbers of voters are placed with self appoint e d di ctators are ena bl ed to threaten serious loss, regard to oth er men, t h at t h e i r vote at an open poll can be Considered as nothi ng b etter t h an the delivery of a mess and often ab so l u t e ru i n ? Y ou di sfranchise altogether men ege who have in the Customs in the Excise,be employments - from a s • uperior—the voice of servility or fear, instead of the cause the law presumes that cannot vote independently genuine judgment of a self-determined citizen, The preva. of the Government which • they andthem. F 1 appoints removes o - lance of there practices is almost as notorious as the most presumption,ac_ of and calculate the thousands an low out this el ten knowledged facts of English history, I believe that the diffi- thousands ofrotrswho are no less dependent on private pa these overruling influences ; but this much at least is un . will then be able to appreciate the fearful extent to which con questionable, that they prevail to such an extent as to vitiate strained and insincere voting pervades your representative sys altogether the fidelity of the total result, and to deprive the tern. The vote of an elector ' thus under control is no way House of Common: of all solid evidence that its Members beneficial to the country, because it carries no new substantive really emanate from the bona fide suffrages of the people.— choice into the national aggregate, and amounts to Nothing ( Hear, hear.) I should have imagined that the general better than a duplication of'thevete of the patron.--( Hear.) accuracy of *what I have just related would have been suffi ciently And to the voter himself, assuming the absence of smiler por ing —especially - made out by proofs which are now of long stand- poses, what is the value of the privilege ? In numberless ing—especially by the evidence taken before the Committee cases the franchis e is felt and hated as a burden ; and if any . . on Bribery and Intimidation, appointed during the last man doubts this, the bitter experience and the humiliating an- Parliament—a body of evidence fraught with mei ewers of a canvass will be quite sufficient to teach it him. choly instruction concerning the actual working of our eve "" indeed, should doubt it ? What value can a man set y, representative system. To that I have often referred, and d othin but a galls a privilege which conveys to his min n g shall often refer again ; and I am sorry to say that it has 11- ing sense of degradation—a feeling that he has a preference now been suffered to remain near three years on the table 7 I believe most firmly to which he dares not give effect . . of the house, without the smallest attempt made b autho fective public working and un rity to provide a remedy for the enormous aim which it that over and above the de discloses.--( Hear, hear.) But this important abuses ' faithfully national result of the present . representative sys -Iwhich elections not left to stand alone. The last elections have been mony l " tern, if we measure the extent of private evi which they replete with proofs of the gar, mostunwarrantableno less now occasion—if we regard the disastrous twilight .n."s- shed over all the relations of social life—the tyranny on the chiefs, attested by the coneearrent and unanimous the part of of all political parties without exception.This,complaints part of the great, the struggle to be tyrannical the art ot . the in fact, the middling, and the reluctant submission on p seems to be the only one point in whicall • parties concur, loss and ruin entailed upon humble—the fatal examples of that bribery and, intimidation' have been widely • diffused conscientious behaviour and of success purchased by un and preenunertl net "try effective. The innumerable discourses of • principled compliance—the discord and suspension of inter- Candidates on the hustings during the election of last Au u t and the factious riot —the daily criminations and recriminations of all the Negwss- course between equals and neighbours, all recurs in our bo paper-e_Whig, Tory, and Radical—all certify the virulence and u h diso a r n d d er which now periodically recurs contemplate this deplorable of the evil, however much they may dispute about the ad. r Catalogue of social evil, the inevitable consequence of a sasissibility of particular remedies. Indeed, it seems to me sharp contest by open voting, we shall find that on this that in most cases parties are less anxious to repel the ground alone, even if there were no other, our elective sys charge from themselves than to fix the like charge upon tem cries loudly for amendment and regeneration. Dicere their opponents. You have heard it constantly said, "We viz. possis, quam multi taha plorent l I predict with con knew th a t our opp onents were i n ti m id at i ng on tneir side, fidence that the present elective system, if the liberty of the therefor e w e w ere f orce d to d o t h e same on ours ; b u t we have franchise still continues to be left without protection, must, in not done so to anything like the same extent as the have."-- a short time, fall into the same state of degeneracy and dig (Hear, hear.) Nulla innocentica curs, zed vices i m punitatis, 1831.—( Hear, hear.) To grace as the old system prior to I can produce, from the declarations even of gentlemen who rescue it from this fate, it is a matter of urgent necessity to are strenuously opposed to the Ballot, the strongest testi- adopt the best remedies in our power against the evils monies to the efficacy and to the prevalence of intimidation at with which it is infested. Hear, hear, hear.) Tentanda elections. Read, for example, the resolutions promulgated via eat ; I call upon the prudence, as well as the patriotism of on the 30th of August last, by those gentlemen who originall y those who supported the Reform Act when it was first pro commenced the Spottiswoode election subscripti on . They posed, and who hailed with warm enthusiasm the generous proclaim, in the plainest and broadest terms, that freedom of p ur p oses whi c h it promised to accomplish—l call upon them election in Ireland is altogether subverted b the system of to assist me in subduing those abuses which they both ac intimidation there established.—( Hear, heavy) Again, Mr. knowledge and lament.—( Cheers. ) Let me remind them Taylor, of Birmingham, who proposed the Tory candidate, that in proposing the Ballot I do not contravene any one of Mr. Stapleton, at that place, stated, publicly, on the hustings, the provisions, Ido not reverse any one of the principles, of that he fully believed if votes had been taken by the Ballot the Reform Act.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord the that Mr. Stapleton would have been returned Member for Member for Stroud, in the opening speech with which he Birmingham. Here is the further testimony of a gentleman introduced the Reform Bill, in March, 18.31, expressly to whom I am sure Honourable Members opposite will stated that the question respecting the best mode of taking not refuse to pay attention. At the nomination at Edin- votes was one which he did not intend to enter upon or dc burgh, on Monday, July 31, 1837, Sir George Clerk termine.—( Hear, hear.) A n d by t h e su b sequent speec h o f said—" I will ve n t ure to appeal to the experience the Noble Lord, made last August at Stroud—( Loud cheers) of every elector in the county, whether there has —and confirmed by the rec e nt s p eec h o f Si r J ames G ra h am not been infinitely more lib era li ty and fairness on the pat Carlisle, we learn that th e B a ll o t f orme d part o f t h e ori art of the Conservati ves th an on that of those who arrogate to them- ginal scheme of the Reform Bill submitted to the Cabinet selves the exclusive name of Liberals ?—( Opposition cheers) of Lord Grey, by those members of that Ministry upon —and lam perfectly certain, if I could get their votes on the whom the task was devolved. Let it be remembered, too, subject, I should have a largo majority in my favour. I main- that this original scheme was based upon a constituency of tain that intimid a ti on i s more use d against my friend s than by twenty-pound householders, and not of ten-pound house any of my supporters • and I firmly beli eve t h at , l oo ki ng only holders; and if the Ballot be required to protect voters of at the personal consideration, or what was to be the effect in a higher qualification, it becomes doubly necessary to pro this Mid-Lothia n ele c ti on , I o ug ht t o b e a n advocate for the tect those of a lower.—( Hear, hear.) Besides, the alterations Ballot; and that a much greater majority would be found in made in the Reform Bill in its progress through Parliament favour of the Conservative candidates, both here and in other were all of such a nature as to strengthen the argument in places, if the Ball ot w as ad o pt e d. It i s n o t, therefore, on favour of the Ballot ; the strongest observations to this effect personal grounds that I oppose the Ballot." And now, Sir, were made by Lord Althorp and others at the moment when let me add the words of a Nobleman who will be peculiarly the clause giving votes to the fifty-pound tenants-at-will in I listened to on this side o f th e H ouse , an d w h o a grees with Sir counties was carried by the House of Commons. So that the George Clerk in opposing the Ballot. At the nomination at Reform Act, as it ultimately passed, stood far more in need Tiverton, on Tuesday, July 23, 1837, Lord Palmersto n ex of the safeguard of the Ballot than the Reform Bill as it was pressed himself in this manner : "My beli e f is founded originally projected. I am quite sure that neither the pro. not merely on what I have heard from others, but my own poser nor the supporters of the Reform Act could hare inten observations. My belief is, that a system has been extended to commit a deliberate fraud, by conferring votes on per sively pursued to deter the electors, by fear of injury to sons whom they knew to be dependent, and with the premedi themselves and their families, from doing that which we tated intention of debarring them from any free will of their heard read this morning, to elect freely and indifferently the own. And with regard to the Noble Lord the Member for persons whom they may think fit to represent them in Parlia- Stroud in particular, there are declarations of his on record silent. Now, Gentlemen, this is not a solitary case, it is the expressing the strong repugnance which lie felt to the exten regular Tory practice—( Chee rs from th e Ministerial Benches, siue intimidation which forced itself upon his notice, and inti echoed back by the Opposition) —and you will hear, when mating that if this system should continue, the adoption of you see the proceedings of the different elections, that the the Ballot as a remedial measure would become inevitable. same thing has been practised whenever a Tory candidate has One extract I will quote from a speech made by the Noble Lord opposed men of liberal and reforming principles."—( Hear. ) at Torquay in Seht., 1832. In that speech the Noble Lord, Let me now cite another Tory witness. In reference to the after having-expressed his strong sense of the " terrible position" late severe contested election in the West Riding of York- (as he terms it) of the landlords, and of the great power which shire, the Tory Leeds Newspaper, the Leeds Intelligeneer • they had the means of exercising over their tenants, expresses says that the Whig Lords forced their tenants to vote for Lord al so his anxious hope that landlords would not avail themselves Alorpeth and Sir George Strickland. " The Duke of Nor- ofthat power fully and extensively. The Noble Lord then states folk's agents put on the screw with unusual severity I—( Loud his own strong objections against the Ballot, and proceeds thus : 1 laughter.) Lord Eitzwilliands did the same ; Lord Thanet's —" Great as I apprehend the inconvenience of the Ballot would agents made the election a matter of life and death—(Great be, yet if it come to this, that I must either adopt such a laughter)—the Duke of Devonshire's were not a whit behind measure, or that I must see the tenantry of England ranged at —( Opposition cheers)—and Lord Burlington's insisted that elections contrary to the feelings and wishes of themselves, I promises given to Mr. Wortley should be violated under should have no hesitation-_I should have no doubt—l should penalties which the poor tenants understood too well."— renounce my previous opinions, and I should at once adopt the ( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Having heard the Tory e'er- Vote by Ballot." Five years and a half have elapsed since sion of the election in the West Riding of York, let us the Noble Lord made the memorable speech to which I have see what is the Whig account of this same contest, and of just referred. There have been two general elections since another important county election in August last. At a that period, and a great many separate and individual clec public dinner on Friday, October 13, 1837, to celebrate the tions : a large body of experience has been acquired, extensive re-election of Lord Morpeth and Sir George Strickland for means of judgment have been brought within our reach, re the West Riding of Yorkshire, and given by the Liberals of sporting the causes on which success and defeat at an election Doncaster, Lord Milton spoke of the causes of his defeat in now turns. I ask what the result of that experience has North Northamptonshire :—" My opponents came against been ? Has it tended to show that the " terrible position me with all the power of the Tory landlords, and all the and power" which the Noble Lord recognised as lodged in power of the parsons; and, gentlemen, they beat me. But the hands of landlords over their tenants has remained un in the West Riding it was different. Here you come used— a sheathed weapon, rendered harmless by the gene against them with the irresistible power of popular intelli- rosity of the wearer ?—( Hear, hear.) Or has experience genre—( Opposition laughter)—intelligence resulting from proved that the landlords of England have not been con the wealth which you have industriously accumulated. And tent with simply possessing that power, but have used it what has been the end of this intelligence ? Why, that you abundantly and unsparingly, and that too for the very pur have returned for the West Riding two Liberal Members poses which the Noble Lord here so unequivocally repro to serve in the House of Commons. On the contrary, North bates—for the purpose of compelling and coercing the Northamptonshire has sent two Tories, not to represent the rotes of their tenantry ?—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) On constituency of that county, for they will most certainly mis- which side has been the verdict of experience ? I might represent the great majority of its inhabitants. I know full answer in the words of Lord Dinorben, spoken at the public well, for I witnessed it on my canvass, what was the real dinner in Flintshire ; of Sir James Gibson Craig, at Edin feeling of that county. I saw that the number of my colours burgh ;of Sir Colman Rashleigh, in Cornwall ; of my Hon. was at least one hundred to one—(loud laughter) —to the Friend, the Member for 'West Surrey, at Guildford ; and of colours of my opponent; bat notwithstanding that strong maxi- several other Gentlemen of strictly Whig politics, who have festation of the opinion of the people in my favour, the in- been induced by that very experience to abandon their ob fluence of the Tory landlords, as I have said before, con- jections against the Ballot—objections originally quite as signed me to defeat, and left me in possession of the borough strong as those entertained by the Noble Lord, the Member which I have now the honour to represent." I could easily for Stroud, himself.—(Loud cheers.) I might answer in the multiply testimonies of this kind if I were not afraid of fa- words of the numerous petitions in favour of the Ballot which tiguing the House ; but I think I have produced enough for have been laid upon your table, many of them signed by per the purpose of my argument. Be it remembered that these sons who were not in favour of the Ballot five years ago; and are not the declarations of Radicals—not the declarations even amongst those petitions the Noble Lord will not forget the of gentlemen friendly to the Ballot—they come from Whigs petition from the inhabitants of Stroud, his own constituents, and Tories, both strongly opposing the Ballot, and both in- signed by 2,100 persons, including more thaa 500 electors of voluntarily testifying the crying necessity that exists for some that borough, and a large proportion of his own friends and remedy equivalent to the Ballot. I shall not surely be sus- supporters.--( Hear, hear.) Sure I am that for all those peeled of exaggerations when I say no more than has been said who, at the passing of the Reform Act, held their minds before me by Lord Palmerston and Sir G eorge Clerk. "a ou o p en t o be convinced by experience whether the protection ma y tell me that I quote defeated candidates. Wh a t if Id o ? of the Bal l ot was or was not required, the subsequent ex- Defeated candidates are not for that reason deprived of their perience has spoken with a voice too plain to be mistaken, be unheard. I have may perhaps exaggerate the comparative effect too loud to . said that the Ballot in no way wits. They of in real operation ; bat they do not conjure up ficti- contradicts either the scope or the enactments of the Reform Act. causes for their defeat. Do we ever hear But Igo farther : I contend that the supporters of the Reform Act, tious and imaginary causes of justice, though they may if they wish to insure the efficacious and creditable working of Suitors who are defeated in a court . . . . and mortification—do we hear them their own measure—if they wish to reap the good which they suffer the greatest anguish fact that the judge was have themselves sown, must inevitably strengthen the Act ascribing the loss of their cause to the bribed or the jury intimidated.—( Hear.) Why, then, do de- with new defences against the briber and intimidator ; they reference to must adopt the inexpugnable safeguard of the secret vote. It footed candidates at an election make perpetual . man concerned is their only chance for preserving the Reform Act from con inbribery or intimidation ?It is because every , . or the losing side,andand, tempt rottenness ; indeed, when I look at the pre elections, whether on the winning and powerful amble of the Reform Act, I find the words not only consist andknows well that these causes are of constant notorious efficacy. It is immaterial to my argument ent with the proposition of the Ballot, but absolutely such as ida it is impossible and to satisfy comply with, under the open which of the various parties in the State employs intim - Lion with the most unsparing han d, or which may be the mode of voting. For wh a t are t h e words of the preamble ? " Whereas it is expedient fo efleck alnAei in eleetions,, and to diminish the expensei of elections." These are thepHecipal items } and l e t me as k, h ave e l ect i on, a b uses b ee n checked :e a tint, The universal voic e o f England, confirmed be Ole b l vidence taken b e f ore you ,own Parliamentary Committee, attests that they have Haee the expenses of elections beon dimi. nish , r Alas I for hum O r n feT cs i ght. T b e li eve most firmly ; and I think I s h ou ld find tn}eelf beetle out by thu authority of the best informed elections agehte ; that as much mohey in the aggregate has beep spent in the last twig elections, as ever was known on similar occasions before.—( Hear, hear.) I confi dently assert that the effects of the Reform Act have not been correspondent to its preamble, and that, if it is intended that they sheettlet ever become so correspondent, this can only happen by the aid of the Ballot.—( Hear, hear.) In fact, to say that the Ballot is a proposition inconsistent with the principles of the Reform Act, is merely to affirm in other words that bribery and intimidation are part and parcel of the Reform Act.—( Hear, hear. ) lam sure that its sincere partisans will be slow to stamp it with such indelible ignominy. Why do I say that the Ballot will achieve the mighty work specified in the preamble of the Reform Act, and which the Reform Act itself has failed to achieve—the work of checking abuses and diminishing expense at elections? I say so, because all this outlay and all these abuses assume the publicity of indisidual votes as an essential condition. There are two leading varieties of election abuse —intimidation and bribery ; intimidation, be it recollected, by far the most extensively practised of the two, because it costs nothing to the intimidator, while bribery necessarily in volves a sacrifice to the briber. Now I maintain that it is a manifest absurdity either to threaten a man with evil or to tempt him with a gift, conditionally upon his performing any given act, when the act is of such a nature that you can never know whether he does it or not.—( Hear, hear.) The secrecy of the act places it out of the reach both of reward and punishment. When an elector votes in secret, it is ab solutely impossible that he can be made either to incur loss or to gain profit in consequence of the way in which his vote is given. It is perfectly well known that in all human enactments the clearest prohibitions and the sharpest penalties are a nullity when you can obtain no evidence to enable you to distinguish between obedience and evasion ; nor has despo tism in its wildest freaks ever gone so far as to believe that it could effectually interdict, or effectually command, any acts which were in their nature secret. Here stands the impassa ble limit to human authority in its efforts to restrain the liberty of mankind : it must have evidence to proceed upon, arising out of the modes of conduct which it condemns and desires to suppress. I think that the proposition which I have just stated is too obvious to need farther illustration. It is a trite apho rism of Lard Bacon, that knowledge is power; and the asser tion analogous to this is still more true, that absence of know ledge is absence of power. Now my purpose is to deprive the intimidator of all his power over votes—( Loud cheers)—and I do so by excluding him from all knowledge of the way in which votes are given. —( Renewed cheers.) This is a me thod at once simple and infallible : and there is no other method which can advance you one step towards the result. You may try what other schemes you please—you may reason with the intimidator—you may try to soothe or cajole him— you may raise the cry of indignant shame against him—you may hold out to him the prospect of legal penalties. Believe me, intimidation is a practice far too gentlemanlike and fashionable to be subdued by such leaden weapons as these. It is the inmate of courts and manor houses—the cherished companion of lordly bosoms—all the pride of wealth and rank, and all the fierceness of political bigotry conspire to uphold it ; the clergyman who discourses eloquently in the pulpit on charity and forgiveness of enemies, neither enjoins nor manifests any such dispositions during a contested elec tion—(Loud cheers)—even ladies of high fashion are not ashamed to direct with their own delicate hands the instant dis continuance of a tradesman who has dared to vote for the shocking Radical.—( Cheers.) Against intimidators sustained by the sympathy and example of all that is great and power ful you can do nothing, except by rendering intimidation me chanically impossible.—( Hear, hear.) You cannot deprive them of their weapons of offence, but you may withdraw the voter out of their reach, and thus smite them with blindness.— ( Cheers.) I assert, without reserve, that the Ballot will ac complish this object—that it will render intimidation altogether impracticable, mid that no ingenuity can disappoint its working. Those who now dictate votes by means of the servile and sel fish fears of electors, must be content to resort to methods of guidance more consistent with the free will of a reasonable man and the dignity of a fellow-citizen.—( Hear, hear.) There are many of them who can employ these gentler me thods with perfect success, and who well know how to find their way to an elector's understanding, when the instruments for forcing his will are snatched from their grasp. And those who disdain to substitute persuasion for control, when the Bal lot shall have bceished the angry and tyrannical passsions from the field of election, will be loft, as they ought to be, to impotent and unavailing complaints.—(Cheers.) Some persons, not altogether averse to the Ballot, maintain, nevertheless, that secret voting will be inoperative to any good purpose, unless you can at the same time prohibit and prevent canvassing; they say further, that canvassing will still be practised, even when votes are taken in secret. To this I have to reply, that the word "canvassing" is of very equivocal import ; it includes something which is harmless and even ind.spensable,—much that is revolting and odious. It is certain that active exertion must be used by some one to make known the name and pretensions oi,,,eandidate, and to ascertain how they are received throughout a constituency. This is a task which must be undertaken by some persons who are ,known in the locality : and thus, in a certain sense, you have a Committee and a canvass, even though voting should be carried on by Ballot. The canvasser would go forth to consult the prevailing sentiment, to communicate the necessary information, to rectify mistakes, and to call vince as well as he could those who were adverse. But the odious part of the practice begins beyond these limits; it is peculiar to the present system of open voting, and can have no existence under the Ballot. It is when your can vassers are not content with trying to convince an elector's understanding, but seek to work upon his will; when they try to importune him into a pledge which his c onscience will not allow him to give ; when they assail his imagination by motives of worldly interest, by the fear of losing the fa vours of one man, by the hope of gaining the patronage of another. It is when the customer or the landlord appears in person or by his deputy—( Hear, hear, hear) —concealing the stringency of command under the modest form of a po lite request. " Te semper anteit sceva necessitas, Clavos trabale set cuneos manu Gestansahona." There is no scene on the face of the earth in which the ha rassing and ungenerous arts of enforcing constrained com pliance are more s kilf u ll y pract i sed than an E ng lish election. There are some m en w h o a bh or these acts as t hey deserve ; there are still m ore w h o profess to abhor them ; and I main tain that both on e an d t h e other ought to jo i n IN ith me in in troducing the vo t e b y B a ll ot. For of what use i s it to forge all these snares when the vote after all must be the e xpression of the voter's free will—when you cannot by any force or any artifice subvert his ultimate independence ? I n order to prevail upon hi m to vote with you, you must induce him to feel and think with you ; and for this p ur p ose the importunity an d screw i ng of the present canvass , the soli citations of the customer, or the threats of the landlord, will not be o n ly unve ili ng but injurious. Even n ow, when canvassers approach a man o f i ndepen d ent position, upon whom they cannot i n any way bring the screw to bear, the applicat ion b ecomes divested of all its most objection able, elem ents; i t would be equally uno bj e ctionable with regard to every voter, without exception, if votes were taken by B a ll ot ; for secrecy makes all voters, poor as well as rich, equa ll y and completely independent. ( Cheers. ) When I am as k e d , s i r, whether the Ballot will put d o wn can vassing, I re pl y , t h at it will put down the bad part of canvass , ing ; it w ill a b o li s h the imperative and the seducti ve canvass ing, whi c h a dd resses itself to the hopes and fears of electors ; it will still l eave t h e persuasive canvassing, which addresses itself to their reason and affecti on s. —(Cheers.) But , then, I am told th a t th e protection imparted by the Ballot supp oses that the vote r v i o l ates his promise. "We do not inquire, ea the prm ise ; (saythe wohbjicehctohrasvewphorecuesed this , argument) into the circum stanceshas once made it he ought to keep it at all prices; and any scheme which implies that ho breaks his promise includes a degree of moral mischief which in our view overbalances all engage augnadienrst m t p o een. show voßt that nu tg let itm me first universallyfialrtsot gaesktkh:pe how on:uygsatt but after a voter the benefits of independent voting." This is the argument chiefly insisted upon by those who oppose the Ballot; and I re gard to broken promises at present? Are election promises t a h e n e r yd voterst h ac e a objection f n a w e h t o them ? Are no attempts now made to • induce voters to break promises once given? Are voters safe from all hazard if imakea k e they faithfully perform their promises ? Sir, when come to answer these questions accurately, we shall find that, we as the case stands now, election promises are not constantly kept, but very frequently broken ; th at t h e reason why they are so broken is because bribers an d i nt i m i dators do all they ca n to induce the voters to break the m; t h at voters are not in the least protected from hazard by the known fact that they have already bound themselves by a distinct promise.—( Hear.) Suppose an elector dependent in his position, a tenant or a tradesman, under the present system of open voting, to pro mise his vote to that candidate whose principles he approves and prefers, is he for that reason one whit the less impor tuned and menaced by those upon whom he is dependent ? Do they regard the promise as inviolably binding, and the vote as a step already foreclosed and predetermined, so that it would be criminal in them to attempt to disturb it? Doubt less there are some gentlemen who eldest •am this feeling, and act upon it ; but I do not scruple to assert that, for one man who feels thus, there are fifty who feel the contrary.— ( Cheers.) A gentleman says to his servant when the Westminster election is coming on, " John, go round to my tradesmen, and let them know that I am very anxious for the success of Sir George Murray, and that I hope they will give him their votes at this election.", " Yes, sir ; but what shall I say if any of them tell me that they have already promised their votes to Leader and Evans ?" " Oh ! I can't help that : you must tell them they must oblige me this once, and that if they vote for these Radicals I won't deal with them any longer." Again, what is the behaviour of a country gentleman when the Tory canvassers come and tell him, " Sir, we have been canvassing in your neighbourhood, and Farmer So and So, your tenant, tells us that he has already promised his vote to the Radical candidate." " Promised his vote to the Radical candidate I why, what right bad he to promise it at all—( Cheers)—without waiting to know whom I support ? Oh you need not be afraid that his vote will be given against you ; I will go and talk to him ; the promise is all stuff and nonsense."—( Cheers.) Sir, this is a faithful picture, how ever disagreeable and humiliating, of that which now occurs at a contested election.—( Cheers from the Ministerial benches, answered by cries of " No, no !" from the Opposition.) I say again, sir, in spite of the denial of the Hon. Gentlemen oppo site, that this is a faithful specimen of what now occurs.— THE SUN, LONDON', PiRiDAY, FEBRUARY . Renewed cries of ".11p,,n0," and, " Seoul, name !") Their med Aeratest Pallot, ti,0 1 . 1 ,1d that elkTtion by narne. is eion:-=4:Liwid Che'erS:,) ,Te heik the argum* cnts ti open voting was a school of probity and veracity ; that a voter who had once Sven his word performed it as a matter of course, with out let or hindrance from any one. Instead of which, what is the fact ? Why, the promise of a dependent voter is" respected just so far as it coincides with the will and the dictates of his superior. In every other case it is trampled in the dust ; it is treated as null and void, as if made by a man who is not .cui :pais ; the very same motives arc held out to him to vote in spite of his promise as would have been held out if he had never made any promise. And, Sir, let me ask what class of promises is it which the pressure of an open canvass thus cause; to be unwillingly broken ? Precisely the best class or promises : the free, the heartfelt, and the voluntary promises, which spring from the sincere preference of the electors who give them. Under the Ballot all these promises are perfectly certain to be kept with fidelity : the same free will which causes them to be originally made will also cause them to be ultimately kept.—( Cheers.) The only promise which can possibly be liable to violation under the Ballot is the promise extorted perforce, which does not carry with it the real feel ing and conviction of the giver.—( Hear.) This is the worst which can possibly happen under the Ballot. But I affirm that this is what will very rarely happen. For who will go about to extort from reluctant voters at the point of the sword these insincere and compulsory premises, when there can be no power of extorting performance ? Who will be guilty of an act of ungracious and oppressive interference, which can answer no purpose, and can only alienate the voter who is made to suffer such degradation ? The Ballot will strike at the root of the evil, because it will take away all motive and all temptation to compel reluctant promises ; and where no reluctant promises are demanded, no such thing as breach of promise will be known. I repeat that breach of promise, so far from being more frequent under the Ballot, will in point of fact be much less frequent than it is now under open voting ; for spontaneous promises are sure to be ob served, and compulsory promises will not be extorted—( Cheers. ) Looking at the question, Sir, simply as it regards the legiti mate obligation and the just estimate of promises, I contend that the Ballot is preferable to an open suffrage. But I will not consent to argue the question upon this narrower ground. I contend that the reference to private promises is neither the appropriate test, nor even the leading consideration, by which our choice as to the mode of suffrage ought to be de termined. I put in a claim on the part of the country to the judgment and voice of every elector, anterior to the claim of any private promise.—( Hear, hear.) The elector is under a paramount obligation, from which no act of his own can dis charge him, to give his vote according to his own conscien tious preference.—(Cheers.) If he chooses to make any pro mise at all in reference to the disposal of his vote, it must be at least in conformity with the dictates of his own conscience : he will then be enabled to perform his promise, and to acquit himself of his paramount electoral obligation by one and the same act. But a promise to vote contrary to his own inward judgment, what is it better than a covenant to commit a dis tinct dreach of duty—premeditated breach of a solemn public duty ?—( Cheers.) If there be in human affairs an immoral and unlawful covenant, assuredly this is one of the deepest dye—an agreement to set aside a known public obligation for the accmplishment of some private purpose—wrong in the man who gives the pledge, but often excusable from the dependence of his position ; wrong in the highest degree, and altogether without excuse or extenuation, in the man who extorts it. What should we say, Sir, of a plaintiff in one of your Courts, who should demand from any wit ness a pledge that he would deliver false testimony, or from a Juryman a promise that he would stand out for a dishonest verdict ? Why, the seal of infamy would be set upon him for ever. But where is the difference in principle, or in what respect am I less guilty, if I take advantage of the dependent position of my tenant or my clerk to force him to break his electoral trust ? You may tell me that the one act is more common than the other, and therefore does not imply the same moral guilt ; I admit that it is so ; but the very same guilty principle pervades both.—( Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, whom he did not then see in his place, in a speech which he made during the recess, expatiated with great horror on a declaration made by the Hon. Member for Dublin, that under the Ballot a man might shout for West and Hamilton, and yet vote for O'Con nell. This, in the Noble Lord's opinion, was the very acme of immorality—that a man should speak one way and vote the contrary. Immoral as this may be, Sir, I shall show the Noble Lord that the same immorality does happen, and must happen, under the present system of open voting, of which he is the champion. The man who, under the Bal lot, would shout for West and Hamilton, and yet vote for O'Connell, what does he do now—his heart by the supposi tion being with O'Connell ? Why, he votes for West and Hamilton, to be sure : but wherever he can express his opi opinion without constraint, he talks in favour of O'Connell— he drinks O'Connell's health, and heartily wishes him success. —( Cheers.) The very same contradiction between vote and speech—the very same falsehood and immorality which the Noble Lord denounces as the exclusive attribute of my system —meets him just as unavoidably on his own. Do what you will, you cannot avoid it when once the intimidator has put in his coercive grasp ; immorality and falsehood of one kind or other, there must be, whether the voting be open or secret. I say that when the vote is made secret the intimidator will not interfere any longer, because he has nothing to gain by it; the lie makes against him instead of making for him, and therefore he will not cause it to be told.--( Cheers.) You hear it sometimes argued, Sir, that open voting makes the elector responsible to the public, and that secret voting removes that responsibility. But this is a mere abuse of terms ; I am prepared to show you that there neither is nor simply can be any responsibility in the case. Responsibility, in its only legitimate meaning, can attach to nothing but to th e performance of a man's duty; a man is responsible when he opinion is the sin duty of of and an eleetor is liabl e t o l oss i n th e ev ent of discharging hi s d uty b a dl y, and when h e i s p ro tect e d from loss in th e event o f dis chargingwell. i er h N is olv o , wn what pi it d to conscien tiously, let him be in the minority or in the majority—let him agree or disagree with whom he may ; my neighbour and I may both discharge our electoral duty with equal fidelity, though he votes for a Tory and I vote for a Radical ; it would be wrong in him to rote as I do ; it would be wrong in me to vote as he does. Now, Sir, this being the sole duty of an elector, will any man tell me that publicity of suffrage makes him responsible for discharging it well ? W . ll any man tell me that every elector who votes sincerely and conscien tiously i s p rotecte d f rom l oss, an d that no elector becomes liable t o l oss except when he votes otherwise ? The reverse is notoriously the fact ; and it is because the reverse is the fact that th e B a ll ot i s demanded.—( Hear, hear.) Let it not be pretended, then, that publicity makes an elector responsible for the discharge of his duty ; all that publicity does is to make him liable to ill usage from those whom he opposes, and to good usage f rom t h ose w h om h e supports. Wh o w i ll b e found to call this by the imposing title of responsibility ? ( Cheers.) Why, it is only seduction and intimidation under a new name. And not only does publicity of suffrage contri bute nothing to keep a voter in the right way against his will (which would be the only object of any real responsibility), but it tends most powerfully to drive him into the wrong way against his will. In a contested election the public are divided into partisans on both sides ; no one ever takes the least thought about tho sincerity of votes; every one thinks that lie is serving the public by multiplying votes on his own side, no matter whether these votes refresent genuine convictions or not. It is thus that the real public obligation, the genuine electoral conscience, is left des titute of all support or guarantee from without, while it is exposed to assault and importunity of every kind from those whose good will or ill will bears closely upon the com forts of the elector. Such are the effects of an open suf frage : so far from creating an efficient public responsibility_ so far from providing new securities for conscientious voting —it only lets in fresh dangers, and SOW 3 factitious seeds of evil. Let the elector vote in secret, and the path of duty becomes at once smooth and easy he will have no perils to defy, and no temptations to resist. Sir, I shall now commend my proposition to the judgment of the House, en treating from them an impartial and dispassionate decision, such as the magnitude of the question demands. The fact is notorious and indisputable, that the representative institutions of this country have become the prey of internal corruption and intimidation the form remains inviolate—the ceremonies are exactly observed—hut that free influence of public con science and sentiment, which alone can give to these so lemnities any meaning or any value, has been checked and frozen up at its source.—(Loud cheers.) There is a method of re-opening this frozen current; there is a method of en suring to the real feeling of electors an easy channel and a certain delivery at the poll-booth ; there is a method of sweeping away all those interested hindrances which now rise up to obstruct the faithful performance of electoral oblige • tion That method is the Ballot an expedient simple, effectual, and self-operating.—( Loud cheers.) From look bribery and intimidation'with unaffected those who upon c ensur e and disgust—from those who feel unshaken faith in their own politic al creed, and who disdain to promote it by the aid of unworthy artifices — from a ll suc h p er s on s , to what ever party they may belong, I confidently anticipate support, because I feel that my proposition deserves it. I implore them not to sit with folded arms, and with a passive resigna tion worthy only of Turkish fatalists, whilst the worst plagues desolate our constituencies ; nor to content themselves with unavailing complaints, as if it were the destiny of the age to corrupt and to be corrupted—to intimidate and to be intimi dated. Depend upon it, Sir, these vices may be subdued, if we c hoose to adopt the right remedy—( Cheers) ;—they are predominant only because we are supine ; they subsist only by our toleration or connivance. It is not for us to co mplain of corruption and intimidation, while we re fuse to honest voters the means of performing their duty i n peace and safety—while we cling to a system of voting which permits the rights of conscience to be trampled on with impunity, and holds out an easy traffic to the selfish ness of dishonest electors. Under a secret suffrage every ves tige of intimidation will and must disappear ; the inde pendence of each separate voter, poor as well as rich, will be built upon a rock which no violence can disturb and no artifice undermine. Believing as I do that the exact record of genuine electoral sentiment, at proper intervals, is the main purpose and the inestimable blessing of all representative in stitutions, I cease not to contend for the Ballot, as a step es sential to its attainment ; and I have full conidence in the good sen se and patriotismlof my countrymen, that they will not per mit freedom of election to perish for want of its legitimate g uarantee.—( The Honourable Member resumed his seat amidst loud cheers.) Mr. WARD rose to second the motion. The Right Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had on a former oc casion said, that "he would remove all proved abuses ;" and in this avowal the gentlemen who sat by the Hon. Baro net's side expressed their full accordance. If, then, it had been proved to the Right Hon. Baronet that the present system was pregnant with proved abuses, that it was fraught with evils of frightfill magnitude, that the evils were daily growing lrger, and that they tiere beeomi r more apparent at, eVery succeeding eleetion; would the Hon. Baronet now retush teo.reas ? He S Mr. Ward) called upon the ftight Hon. Baronet not to shelter hlm4elf irider the silence which he had so strict observed on the two lea' tit'esieiens when this sub ject was discussed ; he called upon him not to conceal his opinions, and would ask him whether he would remove the abuse, and whether he would apply the only remedy which human ingenuity had as yet been able to suggest.---(Laugh ter from the Opposition Benches.) lie supposed that the Right Hon. Baronet attached some importance to the words he had used ; he supposed that he was sincere in his profes ssions ; and when he heard so often the " cuckoo cry" which had run through the Tory ranks ever since the publication of the Tamworth Manifesto, he did fancy that some meaning was intended by it. If the abuses were so great that the table of that House was covered with indignant complaints from some portion of almost every constituency, they had a right to call on the Right lion. Baronet to say how he would deal with those abuses, and what remedy he would apply. If the Right Hon. Baronet derided the suggested means of redress, he (Mr. Ward) would ask how he would remove the evil, how he would relieve the people from this proved and much-com plained-of abuse ? First, then, he would glance at some part of this abuse. Since the Reform Bill had been introduced, the principle and the practice of the electoral system had been completely at variance. In that Bill an important change had been made by a Clause introduced by the Noble Marquis, the Member for Buckinghamshire (Marquis of Chandos) in favour of the County Constituencies in England.—( Hear, hear, hear.) They had all beheld the working of that clause, and he therefore invited the serious consideration of the Noble Lord to the effects produced, to see whether the grounds on which he had recommended it to the attention of Parliament had been established in practice. He (Mr. Ward) well knew the deep interest which the Noble Lord felt in the welfare of the yeomanry, not in his own county alone, but throughout England. He knew how high the Noble Lord stood in their estimation—how justly high he sto.A.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) He had no wish to rob the Noble Lord of any merit, but he wished him to compare his theory of that clause with its working in practice, not only in Buck inghamshire, but elsewhere. The principal reason assigned for its introduction was the perfect independence of the 501. voters. It was urged by the Noble Lord that the farmers were a large, sound, good, honest, and independent class of men, particularly valuable on account of their independence ; and that while they were giving a new Constitution to this country, there was no place for the farmers in the great charter of liberty. The Noble Lord dwelt much on the value of these qualities as entitling them to the con sideration of the House ; the argument and feeling of the Noble Lord were shared in by other Members holding the most opposite political opinions. It was held by more than one Member that the farmers were as necessary to the landlord as the landlord was to them. Lord Western, when a Member of that House, had said that the farmers were most unquestionably an intelligent and in dependent race of men, and that " the Franchise was not calculated to diminish their independence." The only person in that House wlao had held language at all opposed to this was Lord Spencer, then Chancellor of the Exchequer: he alone denied the existence of this independence, pointed out the disadvantageous operation of the Franchise upon their interests as farmers, and the impossibility of exer cising it freely without the Ballot ; the Noble Lord had added that, if the Clause were carried, it would probably render inevitable the Ballot, which would alone correct the evils to which the Clause had given rise. As to the working of the Clause, Lord Spencer had undoubtedly been a true prophet. On a division, however, the Clause was carried by the large majority of 232 to 148. The majority was composed of the Radicals and Aristocracy united ; for the Radical party had on that occasion coalesced with the Aristocracy on the principle of extending the suffrage, and , they were, consequently, to some extent, responsible for the evils to which the clause bad given rise. It became, how ever, a part of the Reform Bill; it was now the law of the land. He (Mr. Ward) had no wish to see it repealed ; but he did wish to see the evils corrected, and that it should be made what it ought to be, and professed to be. He called upon the Noble Lord to assist in the correction of the evils which had occurred—he called upon him to work out the principles which he had professed—( Hear, hear)—he called upon that Noble Load to secure the independence for which he had vouched, and to render the yeomanry what he con ceived them in theory, but which they were not in fact. As the case now stood, the franchise was a curse rather than a blessing. Did not the Noble Lord know that it had been a fatal boon to every honest man who happened to entertain different political views from those which were held by his landlord? He (Mr. Ward) was aware that a great portion of the farmers agreed in the political views of their landlords— (Tory cheers)—but the Ballot would make no difference in this respect; it would not make the farmers Radical, nor would it compel them to vote for the Radical candidate. It would ascertein the real sentiments of the yeomanry, whether they were Radical or Tory. Why, then, did honourable gen tlemen opposite cheer the sentiment that many of the farmers, from mistaken views, as he (Mr. Ward) thought, supported the Tory candidates ? Why they opposed the Ballot, unless they doubted the prevalence of the feeling, and were afraid of the test—( Hear, hear)—was a mystery which he (Mr. Ward) could not explain. Did not the Noble Lord know, that so far from the tenants being allowed to remain independent, and vote as they liked, their votes were appropriated by the land lords ? If they were even indisposed to acquire the right, and neglected to register, there were many instances in which they were compelled to do so, and if they were objected to that they were forced to sustain their right? lie could quote one instance which occurred in the West Riding of York, and in which he believed the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland (Lord Morpeth) could vouch for the facts. Many of the landlords had changed their political opinions. Let them do so if they pleased, that was but just ; but was it because they changed that their tenants must also change ?—( Hear, hear.) Must they veer about from Liberalism to Conservatism, con trary to their own reason and to their own opinions, and al though they might not have the same interests to servo which induced their landlords to alter the course of their political conduct? Or should it be said that they should act upon the bidding of their landlords, in ignorance and in slavery ?—(" No," from the Opposition.) The Noble Marquis said, " No." He would state a case, for the truth of which he could vouch. In the West Riding of York the tenants had gone to the Noble Viscount by whom they were repre sented, and had begged that their votes might be objected to, alleging as a reason, that they were anxious not to offend either party by voting contrary to their desires, and the ob jections in some instances were absolutely made.--( Hear.) He vouched for the fact of such applications having been made—(hear, hear)—and he would ask what franchise had those persons? The votes of the tenants were in all cases looked upon as the chattels of the landlord, in which they had a right to deal, and of which they might dispose—( Hear, hear)—and even the preliminary step of not voting was con strued into a species of crime, which the :tenants were not permitted to commit. The effect of the clause in the Reform Act was to divide all large estates into holdings of 501. each, and to give the landlords a species of feudal right over the votes. This had been the pernicious effect of the clause in many parts of the country ; and during the last two registra tions, where a farmer had held a farm of 2001. yearly value, he had been compelled to join his son, or his nephew, or some other person at all events, in his lease, to increase the num ber of serfs or slaves on the estate, and in effect to revive the state of things which existed formerly in Gatton and Old Sa rum.—( Hear, hear.) This clause had been introduced by the Noble Marquis himself, and he would call on him to endea vour to remove the stigma which he had cast on his own cha racter, and to join the Hon. Member who had brought the pre sent motion before the House, in endeavouring to secure the future welfare of the country, by procuring the adoption of the system of Vote by Ballot.—( A laugh from the Opposi tion.) lion. Gentlemen might laugh, but even more impro bable things than this had happened, and he did not despair vet of seeing Hon. Gentlemen opposite actually join the Hon. Member for London in his attempts to give something like an equality to the franchise, and to extend it to the farmers. The Right Hon. Baronet opposite bad said at the commencement of the Session that the Constitution might be cut and carved, and altered and remoulded, but that such a system as that pro posed could never be adopted, for that it would not suit the interests of the country. Let the House come to the test, and they would find that the Conservatives would never oppose any measure which left the power of coercion safely is their own hands.—( Hear, hear.) He would, however, call upon them to join in supporting this measure, for he was prepared to say that it was a measure which could do nothing but produce a general benefit and a general satisfaction throughout all con stituencies. The Ballot would not destroy the existence of proper feeling in the minds of the people nor the exercise of it—( Hear, hear, hear)—and he did not suppose that it would destroy the influence of the Noble Marquis opposite ; but he was sure that if he should come forward and support it, it would at once remove from him all suspicion of his having ob tained his seat by the exercise of coercion. He would now come to that other argument so often used, and which he had so many Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer; that the Ballot would substitute something like duplicity and deceit for the frank and manly, and old English system which now so happily existed.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he would ask Hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell him what there was frank and manly in the system of men strongly in favour of one party being carried to the poll by force, deck e d out w i th the colours' of the party opposed to them in polities, to vote for the can didate whom they disliked ? The House was told that the Ballot would introduce a degradi rg system of falsehood ; but a very clever pamphlet had recently been published by a Mr. Dennison, in which he said--" The employer and the e mployed, will thus be in the situation of two antagonist tac ticians. And we shall have Livy's description of the rival stratagem of Hannibal and Fabius reduced to the scale of pri vate discord, and realised in the petty arena of an English f arm yard. But which will be victerious ? Here we behold the stout sagacious farmer hedged in on every side, and guarding against all surprise ; then the subtle, active, pry ing agent, keenly intent on his own object, and resort ing to all the crafty wiles that practised ingenuity can suggest to pluck out the heart of his mystery—flatter ing the wife, coaxing the children, bribing the do mestics, wheedling the friends, seducing the man him self into a state of semi -intoxication, in order to drown his caution and stir up his courage, and then take down his words ; converting casual expressions into open avowals, putting the question boldly, and then construing hesitation or silence into assent." If he could contemplate such a state of things as this arising from the introduction of the Ballot, he should at once say, " Let not an experiment which is so dangerous in its consequences be tried." But he was con vinced that such a representation, if applied to the esi's which might follow the adoption of the Ballot, would be grossly exaggerated and quite untrue ; and he would ask whether there could be anything more un-English—for that I was the favourite word which was now used—than the system of espionage thus pointed Out ?—(Hear.) Was there one Member of that House who would support any plan which could lead to such results as that ? He would not believe that there was, he would not do the House the injustice to believe It ..es.( Hear.) There might be acts of violence in times when party feelings ran high, but he could not think that any Honourable Member could use such means as those oointed out.—( Hear, hear.) He did not then attach much importane'A to this argument, hut firmly believed it to he founded on false grounds. Then it was supposed that the landlord had a species of right to dispose of the tenant's vote, and that no measure ought to be passed which wtmld put the tenant in a position in which he might evade the power of his landlord.—( Hear, hear, hear- ) Now if this was correct, he was willing at once to admit that the principle of the Ballot was a mistake • but the right of the tenant to vote was ve-ted in himself and not in the land lord, and the latter was forbidden to interfere with or to limit the exercise of the franchise. In large towns he admitted that the mischief existed to a comparatively trifling extent, be cause the protection of landlords was less called for than in the country districts, and the evil of intimidation was not care tied so far ; but the encroachments on the part of the landlords and of customers were growing fast--( Hear, hear) —and some means must be adopted to prevent their having that effect which it was contrary to justice should be produced. Surely nothing could be more preposterous than that a person should exercise an influence over a voter merely because he hap pened to be a customer at his shop; but yet this was a right which was claimed to a very great extent in London and other large towns. He never saw anything more beautiful or more perfect than the organization of the system at the last two Westminster elections, and he never saw anything which re dounded more to the credit of Hon. Gentlemen opposite ; but at the same time he must declare that he never saw anything more dangerous than the system of intimidation which was used. He saw people carried up to the poll by their richest customers, and deprived of all opportunity of exercising their own opinions and feelings in voting, and compelled to vote for the candidate to whom, perhaps, they were opposed in principles and politics. He said that this was a most danger ous symtern—( Hear)—but he would no doubt be told that at another election there had been interference of another sort, and by another party. Ho had no doubt of it, but he objected to interference at all. He himself had doubts as to the extent of the good effect which this measure would produce in small constituencies; but in large constituencies, where all the votes could not be purchassd, he felt no hesitation in saying that it would have a most beneficial effect, and that it would at once put an end to the crime of bribery. While referring to this subject of bribery he would call the attention of the House to the means adopted to prevent its discovery when the offence had been committed. At the last election the bribery oath had been actually administered by the persons bribing to those bribed, in, order to render the evidence of the latter useless, in the event of their afterwards confessing they ;had been guilty of accepting money for their votes. He would ask if anything could be con ceived which was more disgraceful than this system of per jury_ which was thus adopted ?—( Hear, hear.) And he would ask whether this motion of the Hon. Member for London was not of such a character as was likely to produce such a re sult as would effectually put a stop to such proceedings ( Hear.) Then the question was, could secrecy be insured by Ballot? This question had been so often mooted, and a ea' tisfactory answer had been so often given to it, that h° thought no doubt could exist of the fact, and besides he be lieved that if Hon. Gentlemen opposite were not convinced 01 the fact they would not oppose the motion. Then wh et other objection was there? The only one which was P u " , forth was, that the Ballot would change the national character, for that it was the nature of Englishmen to speak out. Why' that was the very point on which the friends of the Ballot complained now, for the present system prevented them from speaking out.--( Hear.) Nothing of the real feeling of the country could now be ascertained. But let secret Jo t ' frages be granted, and then there could be no doubt tha t the real opinions of the people would be learned, Th e Honourable Member for Tynemouth said that it had failed in America. But it had been adopted in only half the States , the other half continuing the system of open voting, Had the_ .Hon. Member shown that any of the States which had adop ted it had afterwards gone back to open voting ? He had not ; but he (Mr. Ward) was piepared to show, on the contrary, that 5 , e ; vcral of the States, Connecticut, Louisiana, and Kentucky, w example, had actually since adopted the Ballot--(H ear hear, hear.) Surely this was not a proof of its failures, It was said that the franchise, as now established, was n ot d , right given to the people, but only a trust placed in their hat? and the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, in the last speech wlu ed he made upon this subject, on the 2d of June, 1835, aPPe.'lrea‘ to have a confusion of ideas which was quite unusual with h it lice said he " could see no reason why, if the Ballot should r° considered good for the constituents, it should not also bo good for the representatives, and why the system of voting by Ballot should not be introduced into the House of Commo_ o n u s ld Now, a more complete confusion of ideas than this h e ' Leh a not conceive. Hon. Members were sent to that House nsti trust delegated to them by their constituents, and the " edT . tuencies had a right to know how the trust was performu ( Hear, hear)—but the electors were a constitutional bo, Y; to and there was no person from whom they derived their ri g ° as electors. Voters were acted upon at present b y t 7,, causes, a superior and inferior cause, and the mischief n" produced just as much by the dislike which would be k nown to be expressed by the landlord of the voter as it was by th e open and violent expressions of a mob at Huddersfield o r elsewhere. But the right was not acquired from any persons or any body of persons, but from the law, and when it was once obtained it was perfect in all its parts. It wes the futi lity of all the arguments which were urged against the Ballot, coupled with the feeling which existed in favour of it, whic h had tended to work up the public mind to its present states There was a feeling gradually rising up which was becoming( every day more wild, and which proceeded from a sense wrong which existed in the people.--( Hear.) Was there any doubt of the fact that there had been petitions preseuteucil. to that House from almost every large constituency in fa s T tue of the Ballot ; and was it not the fact that in those cont.e encies from which petitions had not been presented, the I f s! . of the landlords had been the real cause which prevented.,h; step being taken ?—( Hear, hear)—for that, had been sent, it would be deemed open rebellion againste landlords.—( Hear, hear.) There was no doubt, h a o7 v ceri that after the long period during which this question had d been under consideration, and the observations which h . d tho made upon the subject, the people of England believe mbarthaws t° question was one only of expediency, as to time, and for principle. The declaration of the Noble Lord the Me L . the if any petittibe Stroud, which was made before the commencement 0 , _, 3 1 Session, had given an importance to the present debate, a nd to the division which was now likely to take place, an d 'L h ear , it would not have obtained under other eircumstances.—( the hear.) The people were most anx i ous to know how fa opinions so expressed were tho indi v id ua l opinions of the Nob l e Lord, and how far the Members of the Government were pre c i pared to identify themselves wi t h th em . They bore in of the opinions expressed by all t h e diff ere nt Members of t Government, and they anxiously looked to see w hether they really entertained them.—( Hear, hear.) There was one IVO Hon. Baronet in the Cabinet (Sir J. C. Hobliouse) who once represented Westminster, and who was formerly a most enthu siastic admirer of the Ballot, and he at least should now be consistent in the opinion which he expressed, because, hovraver natural the change might be, considering with whom for tune had joined him as a co ll eague , y e t hi s c h an ge of opinion vve ui at least tend to shake the opinion of the public in favour o f public men. There was another Right Hon. Gentleman ( Mr. Poulett Thomson) who was returned by the constituency which he represented Kith the utmost confidence, without solieita tion, without canvass; but the time had now corns at which all opinions entertained in favour cf the Ballot must find expression in that House.—( Hear, hear.) He saw another Hon. and Gallant Member ( Sir Hussey Vivian) in his place, whose constituency, to the number of 2,000, had signed a petition in favour of the Ballot. He surely would not hesi tate in the course which he should adopt, and in giving his support to the motion of the Honourable Member for Lon non. From all these gentlemen, and from many more whom he could enumerate, would not the country expect a plain " aye" or " no," for or against the motion ? He trusted that the answer which should be given would be at once satisfac tory to the Honourable Members and to the country.—( Hears hear.) But he would call upon them to reflect deeply on the consequences of the vote which they might give ; and he must express his conviction that anything like a Governmen t opposition to the motion, in which the country was so deeply interested, would have for its effect the production of a new combination, most important to the country, and to this House- Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT rose, but from the low ton° of voice in which he addressed the House many of his iob servations were inaudible. H e d ec l are d t h a t he believe d that the real effect of any m easure b e i ng carr i e d, founde d on the motion of th e H onoura bl e G ent l eman opposite. would be to convert thos e w h o were now R a di ca l s into Consetva tives. He agreed with the Honourable Member who had last spoken, that intimidation was a great evil, but he thought th a t th e H onoura bl e Member for London had laid too great a stress on the after-dinner states of the differ ent candidates. The Honourable Gentleman had expatiated too much on the proposed remedy, without showing that it would really have the effect which was suggested.---( Hear. ) He was of o pi n i on th at i t wou ld b e i mposs ibl e t o make th e specialties o f an act o f P ar li ament di v id e a ll t h e numerou s interests which would b e b roug h t f orwar d . The priesthoo d of Ireland mus t b e remem b ered, and the i n fl uence they Pro duced on th e m i n d s o f t h e people by the power o f supersti tion.—( Hear, h ear .) Th ey had the fact prove d i n the Com mittee, of its having been extorted in the confessional for whom the husband intended to vote.—(No, no.) And they also ha d the stat ement o f Father Mahon having threatene d the electors that h e wou ld v i sit them with t h e m i t igated Pu nishment of massacre i n th i s world, and eternal damna tion in the world t o come.—( ) No, no. He objected also to the assumption of the morality of the measure, for an ho ned voter would entertain doubts as to giving a false answer to the question respecting the mode in which lie gav e his vote. Th e r i g h t o f vot i ng was a trust , a nd it wa s too much to assert that the elector should not be at liberty to vote for whom he pleased, and whom he cons idered the best qua lifi ed, and should not be responsible to pub lic Opi nion for hit conduct. Surely his brother electors a nd the non-elect ors h a d a r i g h t to know bow a person had exercised the trust which had been reposed in him. The Ballot, more over, would no t g i ve i mpun i ty to t h e h onest ma n—it wou ld only give impunity to the rogue. He was sure that th e Mem ber fo r London did not wish to do anything to demoralise the people o f t hi s country, but he (Mr. Herbert) was satisfied th a t . the ad o p t i ng th i s measure would lead to such a result ; and if the Hon. Member entertained the same opinion as himself, he was convinced that he would oppose the project of which he was so ardent an advocate. Again, in looking into a late pro duction of Miss Martineau, one of the chief disciples of the Utilitarian school, he found that that authoress expressed the disappointm e nt she felt at the mode in which the Ballot